A
aspawloski4th
Guest
The insurance company should be told to shut thier face and cover the kid of have their business liscense persmanantly taken from them.
- Status
T
TEPO
Guest
I have a question for the “pro-govornment socialized medicine” crowd…?.. Or whatever… I hope I dont stray from the main topic again, but --since political action is (as I have been informed through Catholic Social Teaching) an important part of being a good Catholic, how far should Catholics be willing to go on socialized medicine?
I mean, is it okay with you if doctors are actually govornment workers if it leads to that… Is that Okay? There must be some limit because you cant say that since people need care then other issues like size of govornment is not important.
There must be some middle point here on the issue isnt there? You surely dont support full govornment ownership do you of the whole medical industry do you?
Is there a line in the sand that the Catholic Bishops have drawn that we shouldnt pass, or should we just go hog wild and give full responsibility to the govornmnt and let them figure out the plan and whatever it ends up as then its good enough for us?
I mean, is it okay with you if doctors are actually govornment workers if it leads to that… Is that Okay? There must be some limit because you cant say that since people need care then other issues like size of govornment is not important.
There must be some middle point here on the issue isnt there? You surely dont support full govornment ownership do you of the whole medical industry do you?
Is there a line in the sand that the Catholic Bishops have drawn that we shouldnt pass, or should we just go hog wild and give full responsibility to the govornmnt and let them figure out the plan and whatever it ends up as then its good enough for us?
E
Ella
Guest
Great questions, TEPO.
I personally do NOT support full government ownership of the whole medical industry like the UK’s NHS. I do not think that would work here. What I do support is a public option for health insurance. Full coverage of all citizens. A way for everyone to get care when they need it. Switzerland is a good example.
There are many countries right now that have made this work. Have a look at this link:
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
C
Contarini
Guest
For me it’s not a question of unconditional support, but of priorities. “Full government ownership” is not intrinsically evil. It is in my opinion undesirable. Indeed, a central government ruling an area of the size of the U.S. is in my opinion itself undesirable. The “principle of subsidiarity” indicates that we should always solve problems on as local a level as possible. But this principle does not decide which problems can be solved on a local level and which can’t.
So no, there’s no “line in the sand” for me. But the more elaborate the bureaucracy and the more complete the government control, the more I will expect urgent reasons to be given for why such drastic steps are necessary.
Edwin
A
apromisemade
Guest
Well said.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Well, I am watching Dr Oz on tv and he is having a free clinic in Houston, Texas, because there is 33% of the people do not have insurance. Why? Up to now, it is because they lost their jobs…no job, no insurance!
L
latin_rite
Guest
The sky is falling the sky is falling!!! I’m out raged!!!
S
Shoshana
Guest
T
TEPO
Guest
I love you.
T
TEPO
Guest
Well that was somewhat of a relief… At least you admit that full govornmet control would warrant some sort of an explanation. full control for me however would prove cause for active response. Especially if abortion, population control or selective breeding techniques were promoted or mandated.
I guess those of us who lack trust in the govornment worry about this stuff more than others. But I’m trying to learn to trust. I’m trying to let go. I just think of Hitler and say to myself -evil can and does exist…
I wish I didnt have these worries, but people have proven throughout history that they can do strange and sometimes evil things.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
The problem is, big business can’t be trusted either. I say fair is fair, since big business got bailed out, we deserve to be bailed out in some way.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
A
Arwen037
Guest
Except it’s the same people bailing out both groups, and for the most part not being bailed out themselves. That’s not fair. Who’s going to bail out the workers who can pay their bills? Or because they can provide for themselves do they not deserve help? Only those who are living or working (big business) outside their means. And apologies to those who live outside their means against their will, but that’s not everyone.
C
Contarini
Guest
There’s no “admitting” going on. I’m suspicious of government too. But I don’t think that human beings are only capable of evil when you call their collective organization a “government” (this was the point made by the two posts following yours).
What exactly do you mean by “active response”?
But you’re leaping from one thing to the other. It’s like saying “if the government establishes a standing army then we should rebel, especially if the standing army starts looting and raping indiscriminately.” You’re going immediately from a situation that might lend itself to abuse to the presumption of such abuse. I agree that the one is to be avoided when possible because of the danger of the other, but only the *actual *abuse would warrant any kind of “active response.”
And my use of an example was deliberate: I think that a standing army is at least as problematic as “full government control” over health care.
I don’t particularly think you should trust the government. But I don’t see why people worry so much about the government controlling health care when they don’t seem to mind the government controlling weapons of mass destruction.
My problem with conservative language claiming “distrust for government” is that it seems glaringly inconsistent. If you don’t start by criticizing the size of the U.S. military, then you don’t really distrust the government at all.
Edwin
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Big business lived outside their means by paying bonuses of millions and billions to pen pushers. The funny thing is now many of those businesses that got bailed out are back to the same baloney again. You apparently have no problem with that, while people loose thier home just because they had the misfortune of getting cancer. Someone doesn’t have her priorities in line, it sounds like to me.
A
Arwen037
Guest
I DO have a problem with that. I don’t think we should have bailed them out. I don’t agree with the fact that they are up to the same baloney. I already posted this. Again you choose to ignore everything I say except the things you think make me look like a monster. But I have have a problem with this AND can disagree with socialized health care. I don’t think the government should be stepping in. My position is consistent. Yours is not. You seem to only want the government to step in when it benefits you. You care that people lose their homes because they get cancer, but don’t care if they lose their home because their CEOs mismanaged the company.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Your method of justuce is different from mine. Yours is based on stop what you call unjust now. Mine is lets make sure everything is evened out then stop it. Actually I would be more wanting governement to step in for my wife than me by far. Companies like AIG after being bailed out are back up to the same old shinagins again, while cancer patiants loose their fanny. Actually I don’t think governemnt is the ultimate solution, but the current climate it is the far lesser of 2 evils. You talk about consistancy, the real difference is you are an at all cost idealogue, while I’m pragmatic. I realize we have a broken monatry system since the days of FDR taking up of the gold system, so I take the national debt with a grain of saalt realizing all money is created out of nothing and backed by nothing , therefore insiders maipulate it the way they want to keep in power. The Obama adminstration is just stooges for the shadow governement. Insted of letting it rule us lets take advantage of it while its possbile.
A
Arwen037
Guest
But you’re not taking advantage of it, you’re taking advantage of workers who can pay their bills. And evening it out winds up becoming “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Where in your plan is making sure everyone is working fairly?
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Define fair! I don’t think the manager who sits at his desk all day while his workers work their fanny off is earning his money fairly, quite frankly. Thats no more an honest way to make a living than prostitution.
A
Arwen037
Guest
He is needed, therefore it is fair. Do you really think that managers should be paid less than normal workers? Do you think that someone who sits at a desk should be paid less because they aren’t doing manual labor? Even if their jobs requires more education and more stress? Fairness of pay is based on supply and demand. If there are fewer people who can and will work it, they should be paid more. If the worker is unskilled with no degree, then they aren’t worth much. That’s fair.
And you still haven’t addressed taking advantage of workers. Not all the workers who will be affected are desk workers. It will affect carpenters, like my stepdad. It will affect me, as a physical therapist. It will affect my boyfriend who will be an electrician. Do those jobs meet your ridiculous standard to be an “honest” job? You are just resentful, not at all reasonable about this “earning” thing.
And you still haven’t addressed taking advantage of workers. Not all the workers who will be affected are desk workers. It will affect carpenters, like my stepdad. It will affect me, as a physical therapist. It will affect my boyfriend who will be an electrician. Do those jobs meet your ridiculous standard to be an “honest” job? You are just resentful, not at all reasonable about this “earning” thing.
- Status